Bush Issues Signing Statement On Defense Act, Waiving Ban On Permanent Bases In Iraq
Bush Issues Signing Statement On Defense Act, Waiving Ban On Permanent Bases In Iraq
President Bush yesterday signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act after initially rejecting Congress’s first version because it would have allegedly opened the Iraqi government to “expensive lawsuits.”
Even though he forced Congress to change its original bill, Bush’s signature yesterday came with a little-noticed signing statement, claiming that provisions in the law “could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations.” CQ reports on the provisions Bush plans to disregard:
One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq’s oil money.
In his “Memorandum of Justification” for the waiver, Bush cited his Nov. 26 “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” between Iraq and the United States. This agreement has been aggressively opposed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress as not only unprecedented, but also potentially unconstitutional because it was enacted without the agreement of the legislation branch.
Today on CNN, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) voiced concern that this declaration may indefinitely commit U.S. troops to fighting Iraq’s civil wars:
Involved in those declaration of principles, there is an implicit potential for the United States military forces, years from now, being involved in a full-blown civil war in Iraq. And I don’t believe that’s where the American people want us and I don’t think that’s in the best interest of our national security.
Earlier this month, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced legislation requiring the Bush administration “to consult with Congress before moving forward with any agreement that could lead to long term security arrangements and other major economic and political commitments.”
Throughout his presidency, Bush has issued more than 151 signing statements challenging 1149 provisions of laws.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
134 Responses to “Bush Issues Signing Statement On Defense Act, Waiving Ban On Permanent Bases In Iraq”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
Look at that ugly , smirking , stupid simian ; all of you who voted for this stupid piece of crap should be immediately deported …………
January 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pmI say a signing statement means nothing….it is not even a legal procure as it is used by bush.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pmRemember when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional?
How is this any different?
January 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pmOK, maybe my previous post was out of line, but I’m so effing mad at this chymp and the spinelesss bastards in congress that I could just piss into a hurricane!
January 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pmA case could be made by any lawyer that the use of the signing statements by bush are impeachable offenses, when taken as a whole.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pmHe is usurping the legislative branch’s authority.
An agreement between the US and another country is a treaty, which the President can develop BUT must, by the Constitution, have approved by Congress. STRIKE ONE
Congress, by the Constitution, has sole authority over funding, including any military bases. STRIKE TWO
Congress, by the Constitution, has investigative powers and may require documents and other evidence as it deems necessary. STRIKE THREE
BUSH IS OUT! (Or he should be anyway)
January 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pmThe worthless, lying, election-stealing, war-mongering, torturing little Texas tyrant…
January 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pmI don’t understand why this would be anything that we need to be concerned about. It’s not like it would be hard for the next president to have their own XO declaring everything Bush ever made, including his twins, shall burn in the fiery pits of hell.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pmRemember when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional?
How is this any different?
Comment by toasterhead — January 29, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Excellent point that bears repeating.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pmconstitution??? we don’t need no stinkin’ constitution!!
January 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pmAnd Bushies constitutional obligations are to either veto a bill or sign it. He doesn’t have a line item veto. This “Delaration of Principles” is a treaty and is unconstitutional as Congress was not consulted prior to agreement.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:38 pmBUSH IS OUT! (Or he should be anyway)
Comment by RUCerious — January 29, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Congress so far is giving him an intentional walk.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:38 pmAnother prime example of the Theory of Unitary Executive that makes my stomach turn. This is exactly the wrong way to fight the war on the terror… November ‘08 can’t come fast enough.
Mr. Purple
January 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pmBUSH IS OUT! (Or he should be anyway)
Comment by RUCerious — January 29, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Congress so far is giving him an intentional walk.
Comment by toasterhead — January 29, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pmLong past time that someone threw a “purpose pitch” at his empty head……………..
A REAL question:
Could Congress pass bills that specify that if a “signing statement” is used to NULLIFY any PART of a bill, then the whole thing is REVOKED
and REVERTS BACK TO Congress?
January 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pmOkay, Repub and Dems in Congress, do something about it. Talking is no longer going to resolve the anger of Americans toward our government. It’s time to take on this lame brain president.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pmBUSH IS OUT! (Or he should be anyway)
Comment by RUCerious — January 29, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
not to be picky, but that was plc, if I’m not mistaken…
January 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pmLong past time that someone threw a “purpose pitch†at his empty head……………..
Comment by MCMetal — January 29, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Can I try a gonadal fastball instead??
January 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pmNo, this president must be dealt with harshly, publicly and permanently. He is setting precedents for what can be done by future presidents and, more importantly, by future Republicans. Think about the lessons that were actually learned by those in the Nixon administration. Did they learn that it was wrong to break the law, to spy on US citizens or to subvert the constitution? NO, THEY LEARNED HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS TO CLOAK THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN SECRECY. THEY LEARNED TO CREATE A FIGHT OVER EVERY ISSUE AND TO STRETCH THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT PAST THE CONSTITUTIONAL BREAKING POINT. THEY KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE LITTLE CONSEQUENCE FROM THE CONGRESS. THEY KNEW THAT A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY WOULD NEVER REPEAT THE HUMILIATION OF THEIR PARTY BY THE IMPEACHMENT OR RESIGNATION OF ANOTHER PRESIDENT.
Nixon went home, Regan got his Iran - Contra deal. There have been no consequences. We will see other Presidents follow this path based upon what has happened.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pmThe chimp-in-chief trying to be relevant again?
“The Constitution is just a God damned piece of paper.”- George W Bush.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pmLong past time that someone threw a “purpose pitch†at his empty head……………..
Comment by MCMetal — January 29, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Can I try a gonadal fastball instead??
Comment by RUCerious — January 29, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pmI seriously doubt anyone’s aim is that good……….
McMetal, yeah, tiny little target and alllllll…..
January 29th, 2008 at 3:48 pmnot to be picky, but that was plc, if I’m not mistaken…
Comment by RUCerious — January 29, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Quite alright, I’ll just take credit for one of your future posts - I’ll pick one of your excellent, sarcastic, humorous ones. You won’t miss it from your large stock pile.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:48 pmThe U.S. Constitution: W.’s toilet paper.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:49 pmWhere does it say in the Constitution (whose obligations Bush apparently feels so strongly about carrying out):
- that the President must ensure that whistleblowers are denied protections,
January 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pm- that the President must ensure that intelligence agencies ignore congressional requests for documents,
- that the President must ensure contractors are not investigated for fraud,
and
- the President has final say on spending matters?
Head, gonads - both would take an extraordinary aim. Now, if you aim at the ego, you’ve got a huge target.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:51 pmThanks PLC, **blushing**…
January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pmLong past time that someone threw a “purpose pitch†at his empty head……………..Comment by MCMetal — January 29, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Can I try a gonadal fastball instead??
Comment by RUCerious — January 29, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
I seriously doubt anyone’s aim is that good……….
Comment by MCMetal
I’m not sure. ‘Curveball’ hit one out of the park on Bush with his Iraq lies. OTOH, I’d sure like to serve up a knuckleball sandwich…
January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pmSince the good Congresspeople may have missed it, US troops are fighting Iraqs civil wars and have been doing so since they staged the toppling of Saddam’s statute the day they took the capitol.
We’ve been played. US oil companies, in order to keep up their record profits as well as to keep Cheney and Bush comfortable in their retiremnt, must make sure ME oil keeps flowing out the Strait. The US military (apparently) is their military (at least until Blackwater has an aircraft carrier or 2 of its own) and has been ordered to protect their profits. The rest of the world really doesn’t mind because it likes either the oil or the by-products the oil brings (gas, other types of fuel, plastics galore, etc).
So, lots of US soldiers right in the middle of things is just what the Good Lord ordered. Added benefit, W’s base gets to spread Christianity to those that have rejected it time and time and time again.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pmThe criminal conspiracy acts to cover itself again. If Congress doesn’t make funds contingent upon full enactment ohne signing statements, the criminals will be able to continue acting unfetterd.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pmIsn’t this exactly how Hitler went about things?
January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pmThe insidious thing about signing statements is that it is difficult to have a Supreme Court Case where they can be challenged. Without a case, the court, even if it weren’t a hand-picked crop of cronies and ideologues, has no handle to grapple with the issue. The ONLY real check to this unconstitutional presidential power is IMPEACHMENT, dangit!
Bush’s crimes are blatant and bald-faced! We deserve better leaders since ours refuse to fulfull their Constitutionally defined roles. Precedents are too powerful to ignore, and our leaders would be wise to recognize the depth of our ANGER and its increasing focus on THEM as well as Geogie and his fellow criminals. ANGER such as mine (and the other faithful here on TP) is not so easily smoothed over.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pm19…..well shouted in the halls……..can we get an amplified speaker for this man please……..
seriously, very much to the point.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pmanother day, more treason by the agent of a foreign government acting as presnit of this country. why would congress put up with it if they aren’t complicit?
January 29th, 2008 at 3:55 pmImpeach. Kthxbai.
~Sean
January 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pmYes, Impeachment is the punishment for the many high crimes and misdemeanors committed by this crew, but that was taken off the table in order to (i) try and win friends and influence people or (ii) to protect some Democratic politicians’ backsides.
There will be no impeachment.
The next president, and all those after, will be able to do what W has done and more.
The Dems and GOP will, alternately cry (depending on who’s party is i n power).
And all those ideals those brave men and women in our Armed Forces have died for will rot in the gutter of great ideas gone unrealized.
Heck of a job. I hope all of you out there that think W is da MAN enjoyed the ride. Unfortunately for you (and for all of us), you pay for this ride at the end, not the beginning.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pmHow about our ‘liberal media’ asks the Republican candidates what they think about permanent bases in Iraq? That would be useful information for voters, yes???
I won’t hold my breath.
Republicans, Corporations, and the media hate voters - the fewer, the better, as far as they are concerned.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pmand there you have it: GWB is court, congress, and executive all in one
who needs three branches of government when you can have a king??
if our congress doesn’t grow some huevos, i say its time to storm the bastille!
January 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pmAh, but in the 21st Century, there is only a virtual storming of the Bastille. No one on this side of the political spectrum goes out in the elements to make a point any more. Another truism W counts on.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pmHe can’t even sign bills honestly.
What a POS this low life scum sucking sociopathic fascist is.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
January 29th, 2008 at 4:06 pmI see Chimpy having the time of his life , autographing a copy of “My Pet Goat” with a crayon…………..
What a goddamn embarrassment that mental furball is.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pmWho needs the line item veto when you have line item signing statements.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pmAh, but in the 21st Century, there is only a virtual storming of the Bastille. No one on this side of the political spectrum goes out in the elements to make a point any more. Another truism W counts on.
Comment by po
yep, I would bet that of all of the people who come here that less than 5% have actually done anything to change the way things are that amount to much more than voting…….and that’s having faith.
Why are there not people in the Washinton Park Mall? Lots of them. Speakers lined up to talk about these issues which are just as important as those that drove us to the streets before….maybe moreso.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pmWhat’s so Deeply Disturbing is how Congress won’t even make a noise about this. If Clinton did 1/100th of this, Imagine the noise they would have made. And the echoing silence of the MSM is absolutely abysmal. Its pointless, but I’ve still got to say it one more time:
January 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pmImpeach Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution.
Can someone please explain how this particular turd , an unintelligent and dishonest schmuck , is the individual that should receive previously unheard of powers as president ?
That’s like making a friggin’ arsonist a city’s Fire Chief…………
January 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pmSigning statement ?
Hey Congress , it’s way past time this jerkoff signed his RESIGNATION STATEMENT………………….
January 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pmCongress; impeach Bush/Cheney! NOW! Lead, follow, or get the phuck out of the way!
January 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pmI’d like to hear each of the presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican, talk about how they would use or not use signing statements. Hey! Debate Moderators! I’m talking to U!!
January 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pmIt is BECAUSE of all this kind of BS, that comparisons of Bush & Hitler is made.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pmNo law is anygood unless it is enforced….NANCY,CONGRESS…
January 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pmI can’t wait until the next Democratic President (either Hillary or Obama) makes their first signing statement. You will hear the most phony outrage from the right-wing ever. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will be squealing about how the Dem President is “subverting the will of the American people and Congress with their illegal signing statements”.
Congress should take action to limit signing statements in general. I mean, why even have Congress passing laws at all if the President can just put a statement on them claiming the laws do not apply to him or his administration? No wonder Congress is weaker than ever under this administration. No wonder they don’t even consult with Republican Congressmen. Congress has been neutered under King George II’s reign.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pmRemember when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional?
How is this any different?
Comment by toasterhead — January 29, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Right, just like his stupid declaration last night that he is instructing the executive branch to not implement any earmarks that get passed. What a crock. Anyone want to bet wheter that that order gets implemented based on party lines?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pmWhere are all the goose-stepping trolls defending their wannabe Fuhrer? Exlax? RR? Daryll? Frankie?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:24 pmwho is invested heavily in the Carlyle group and defense???? Besides, that is, the corporate media selling this on going scam down our throats….Mamie and Poppy Bush?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pmCongress should take action to limit signing statements in general.
Comment by BrianFL — January 29, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Great idea, but the President would just issue a signing statement nullifying the limitation on signing statements.
This sounds like a job for the Supreme Court, really.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pmNothing changes until november maybe…..unless you take it to them……
January 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pmWell, it’s time for Congress to do something to overturn his signing statement. I’m sure there is a way to do it. I also hope that the new Democratic President does away with this nasty little trick.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pmI’m your KING, you revolting peasants!! Get used to it!!
Or else.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:35 pmCan you imagine how loud the Republiscums will be yelling the first time a Democratic President used a signing statement to nullify a law or part of a law. They will be apoplectic and it will be fun to watch. But, I do hope that the new Democratic President doesn’t stoop to this tactic. If s/he does, I will criticize the move the same way I have criticized Bush’s use of this tactic.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pmI’m your KING, you revolting peasants!! Get used to it!!
Or else.
Comment by Leftside Annie — January 29, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
“Or else” what ?
He gonna’ teach us all a lesson by invading Iceland ?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pmOne day the world will hunt down everyone who supported this Nazi, the same way they hunted down everyone who supported Hitler.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pmI’d like to hear each of the presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican, talk about how they would use or not use signing statements. Hey! Debate Moderators! I’m talking to U!!
Comment by RUCerious —
January 29th, 2008 at 4:39 pmCorporatist New World Order Corporatist Bill/Hillary Clinton, (their friendship with Bush Sr is frightening) would probably go for this… Obama the constitutional scholar would not.
this is where you make the required changes:
you just need people
http://www.nps.gov/nama/
January 29th, 2008 at 4:40 pmInstead of reporting this , the MSM is blaring Obama’s perceived ’snub’ of Ms Clinton and the horseshit GOP’s primary in Florida………..
As if the Obama-Clinton thing is even valid and the pathetic wrinkled old clods vying for the GOP presidential nomination have a shot in hell come November ?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:42 pmThe Supreme Court has already ruled that the President does not have the power to use an amendatory veto.
So why hasn’t someone taken this to court to fight it along those lines?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:42 pm60 - he’ll send us to Gitmo, of course. Prolly throw in some waterboarding just for grins and giggles.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pmHow about our ‘liberal media’ asks the Republican candidates what they think about permanent bases in Iraq? That would be useful information for voters, yes???
Comment by Peter C
How about the ‘liberal media’ ask the Republican candidates what they think about signing statements. That would be VERY useful information.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pmWatching the Supremes enter last night in their robes made me think
I was watching a religious ceremony.
Then I remembered what Scalia, Roberts, Thomas & Alito stand for…Conservatrons…mindless, willing stooges clouding themselves in delusions of grandeur and pseudo-intellectual ‘challenges’.
As they sat down I realized the full impact of Chimpster’s reign. It will be in these clowns’ hands for most of the rest of us poster’s lives.
Signing statements? Go see the Supremes.
Discrimination? Go see the Supremes.
Eminent Domain? Go see the Supremes.
Monopolistic immunity? Go see the Supremes.
You get my point…it was like a live nightmare in prime time.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:44 pm60 - he’ll send us to Gitmo, of course. Prolly throw in some waterboarding just for grins and giggles.
Comment by Leftside Annie — January 29, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 4:45 pmHe better make sure I never make it out of there……….
Shrubya, undermining the rubber-stamp Republicans, what Irony!
January 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pmComment by dogjudge
January 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pmI am waiting to see if our new ‘09 Congress begins impeachment proceedings against some in the SCOTUS for their illegally selecting the pres in 2000. They should and they could.
Comment by Zimzone — January 29, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Scalia , Thomas , Roberts and Assholito are 4 of the least intelligent clowns I’ve ever seen ; that these turds are Supreme Court Justices is simply another skid mark in Chimpy’s sorry-ass legacy as the worst president in US history…………..
January 29th, 2008 at 4:49 pmI see a real steamy letter coming out of Congress on this one.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:49 pmObama’s gonna appoint Oprah Winfrey to the Supreme Court.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:50 pm…and at the end of each bill….’Any signing statements will VOID this bill.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm151 signing statements
That really should read that he has issued 1149 signing statements regarding 151 laws. And that’s quite a jump. In June, 2006 he had issued 750 signing statements on 110 laws. He’s really ramping up.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:53 pmOk, this is getting scary. Has TP finally done something about the troll problem here or are all the trolls hung over from their SOTU parties last night?
January 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pmPeople who offer blanket criticism of the Media should listen to NPR more often. This timely piece was from last week’s morning edition:
http://www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=18368586
The U.S. and Iraq are negotiating an arrangement that would permit U.S. forces to continue to operate in Iraq for many years — possibly decades. Critics says the Bush and Maliki governments are colluding on a deal that would require no legislative approval.
It also includes a provision that promises to maintain the stability of Iraq’s government from “internal and external threats.” This sentence is raising alarms for some U.S. lawmakers.
Such a hefty commitment would be unprecedented in the history of American foreign policy.
Bush is trying to commit our troops to the middle of Iraq’s civil war, and the permanent Bases that this would require. He won’t call it a treaty, because that would require congressional approval….but that’s what it is.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pmDid anyone actually think those bases would be folded up and returned home anytime soon?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm#75, I like that idea. But, I fear that the GOP would just come up with a new name for the signing statement.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pma travesty of democracy
January 29th, 2008 at 5:06 pmHow could any one of these things inhibit the president from carrying out his constitutional obligations?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:23 pmWhat a piece of dry-drunk work we’ve got for a president.
Obama’s gonna appoint Oprah Winfrey to the Supreme Court.
Comment by ForTruth — January 29, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pmIf you added Oprah’s IQ to those of the imbeciles Scalia , Thomas , Roberts and Assholito , it would threaten to break room temperature numbers ; which it is far below without her ………….
I see a real steamy letter coming out of Congress on this one.
Comment by ForTruth — January 29, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pmThey’re gonna’ get Mark Foley to pen it while he’s on MySpace ?
Signing Statements are worse than earmarks.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:28 pmSecrecy is the key to a dysfunctional democracy.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:29 pmAbout earmarks. Hadn’t the dems already cut earmarks in half since gaining the congress? And isn’t it just ironic that he waits until his last year in office to say or do anything about them, and it will not effect his administration because it is next year’s budget? What a complete jerk.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pmWhy focus only on the fourth of these heinous statements?
One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors.
A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents.
What about these? How blatant can the cronyism be?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pmgummitch- this IS all about his cronies. It is so blatant that it probably won’t get a single rise out of congress. Especially Harvey Milktoast Reid and “I’m so-pleased-to-stand-next-to-Bush Smiling Pelosi.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pmanother signing statement from the swine in chief? How imaginative! And how totally and hypocritically transparent. There goes his legacy - hah! It was finished years ago.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:37 pmleftcoast: Wasn’t Miss Nancy pretty creepy last night behind the Chimp? She’s a real piece of work.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:38 pmBush is trying so hard to alter history and his reputation in his waning moments as Lameduck. He’s saying all of the altruistic things but then going behind backs and doing the dirty deed. There’s one collective ‘breath holding’ taking place right now in this country - just can’t wait to see the Chimp gone!
January 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pmJust wait until a Dem gets in to shed some light on the state of our laws in this country (or lack thereof) due to the Bush signing statements. The fact is that we have no clue what this madman has done to this country and will find out defacto - when he’s in exile in Paraguay.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:41 pmveritas-She has turned out to big the biggest disappointment. And “creepy” is a good word to describe her look last night.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pmWhere are AIPAC-girl Pelossi and Empty-Suit Reid? And, of course, do not forget the other Democrats in Congress.
How can any one of us continue to support Democrats?
Not this one! I’m finished with them and encourage others to do the same.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:43 pmHow the hell did Pelosi and Reid get their respective nods for their positions? What fools were in charge on these picks?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pmNot this one! I’m finished with them and encourage others to do the same.
Comment by Cabeza de Vaca — January 29, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
###
Unfortunately, we have a two-party system, and the dems are a lot better than the other side of the aisle. Until we have more parties to pick from - that actually stand a chance at being elected - we have to choose the lesser of two evils.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pmEspecially Harvey Milktoast Reid and “I’m so-pleased-to-stand-next-to-Bush Smiling Pelosi.
Comment by leftcoast
leftcoast - I am not sure what you meant with this, but I take it as a slur against Harvey Milk. I hope you didn’t mean it that way.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pmUnfortunately, we have a two-party system, and the dems are a lot better than the other side of the aisle. Until we have more parties to pick from - that actually stand a chance at being elected - we have to choose the lesser of two evils.
Comment by Chris L
Or even better, how about a “no party” system. How about we chuck the electoral college and go to a strictly popular winner takes all vote. That would seriously dilute the influence of political parties on our elections. Under a system like that, with a free press, someone like Dennis Kucinich would have had a fighting chance at the Presidency.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:50 pmHow can any one of us continue to support Democrats?
Not this one! I’m finished with them and encourage others to do the same.
Comment by Cabeza de Vaca
Oh really, then who are you going to support?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:51 pmomment by bilbobaggins Harvey Milktoast is an old phrase.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:52 pmOr even better, how about a “no party†system. How about we chuck the electoral college and go to a strictly popular winner takes all vote. That would seriously dilute the influence of political parties on our elections. Under a system like that, with a free press, someone like Dennis Kucinich would have had a fighting chance at the Presidency.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 29, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
####
Sounds like a great idea. My only concern is that with our current pop-culture society, elections would be like American Idol and we would end up with a Spears/Hilton ticket.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:54 pmbilbobaggins- I use harvey to update casper.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:55 pmThank God the Commanderin’ Chimp doesn’t have line item veto powers, eh?
January 29th, 2008 at 6:10 pmnot a “signing statement”, but another example of this 2-faced criminal at work… i just found this on the google news:
Future of FutureGen project uncertain
Bizjournals.com - 44 minutes ago
Reports that the US Department of Energy is planning to pursue alternatives to the FutureGen Alliance’s $1.8 billion federally funded clean-coal power plant drew the ire of US Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
US drops support for clean coal plant: lawmaker Reuters UK
Energy Department pulling plug on FutureGen Crain’s Chicago Business
didn’t that pompous asso just last night tout COAL (and nu-ku-lar) for energy supplies ???
yes, he did… from the first story:
“For five years, the Department of Energy has urged our state and others to pursue, at great expense and sacrifice, this critically important energy project,†Durbin said. “When the city of Mattoon, Ill., was chosen … the Secretary of Energy set out to kill FutureGen.
“The final decision must be made by President Bush who announced FutureGen in 2003 and even referred to this critical technology research in his State of the Union speech (Monday) night.â€
another opposite day in bushco bizarro world…
January 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pmand durbin’s pissed.
Remember when so many chortled at George’s statement made back in 2000 that this would all be a lot easier if it was a dictatorship - as long as he was the dictator?
He, obviously wasn’t kidding and has been acting that way ever since. Laws don’t apply to him, the Constitution is something you wipe your ass with, do everything you can to break government, and help out your friends - the loyal ones - with whatever they want. Grab what you want, and piss on everything and everyone else.
King George should be impeached. Now. Congress?
January 29th, 2008 at 6:46 pmSorry Bushie, No signee statement, no waivee. No constitutional, not a real issue.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pmSounds like a great idea. My only concern is that with our current pop-culture society, elections would be like American Idol and we would end up with a Spears/Hilton ticket.
Comment by Chris L — January 29, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pmTalk about a couple of ‘polticial’ whores ; be impossible to top that double-bill………..
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 29, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Bilbo, how you propose protecting against the “tyranny of the majority?”
January 29th, 2008 at 7:27 pmAnd a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq’s oil money.
These are two of the most critical issues involved in the Iraq occupation. They go together, of course. Corporate oil will need our military presence nearby to protect their “blood oil” profits. Sadly neither of these issues gets any mention except on progressive sites and blogs, even though they go right to the heart of our involvement in Iraq.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:32 pmThere’s only one solution. Require that president’s must write their own signing statements.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:58 pmCabeza de Vaca means “Head of Cow” This surname was granted to his family in the 13th century, when his ancestor aided a Christian army attacking Moors by pointing out a secret pass through the mountains by leaving a cow’s head there. In the prologue to his great story relating his shipwreck and wanderings in North America, he refers to his forefather’s service to the King, and regrets that his own deeds could not be as great, due to forces beyond his control.
This troll picked an intresting historical person for himself, perfect for a republican idiot. Check out the wiki entry…
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ %C3%81lvar_N%C3%BA%C3%B1ez_Cabeza_de_Vaca
January 29th, 2008 at 8:03 pmWhile these signing statements aren’t supposed to represent legal authority, under the Bush administration, all federal workers have been instructed to implement them as being valid. That’s been going on during the entire administration. The Constitution has been dismantled bit by bit through the use of these signing statements and nobody has enough courage to take it to court.
Of course, with Bush installing the last two justices and the Chief Justice, maybe the other politicians know the court would side with Bush. They gave him the presidency to begin with.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:24 pmAmericans are too FAT, LAZY and STUPID to do anything to fix the problem.
The only thing that Americans are any good at is cranking up their credit card debt.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:51 pmWow, nice and constructive, JPV.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:29 pmWow. The look on Bush’s face in the photograph above just says it all, doesn’t it? That is the look of a man drunk with power, who is certain he has gotten away with grave crimes he will never face punishment for.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:12 amDoes anybody know where these signing statements reside?
I mean, instead of waiting and hoping that TP or some other blog or media outlet publishes them, where do they go to get published, where we can go and look them up?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:59 amJanuary 30th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Wow. The look on Bush’s face in the photograph above just says it all, doesn’t it? That is the look of a man drunk with power, who is certain he has gotten away with grave crimes he will never face punishment for.
Comment by Moderation — January 30, 2008 @ 12:12 am
Forgetting, of course, that God SEES the EVIL acts of GENOCIDE that he has committed, and has HEARD Bush’s LIES.
Judgement Day for Bush is not likely to be good for his ETERNITY.
The Evangelicals say LIARS and MURDERERS will go to hell, so….
January 30th, 2008 at 2:55 amWhat is the difference whether or not signing statements are given any legal weight when their is essentially no more than a pretense of Congressional oversight?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:43 amIts not as though its ever going to be tested in court.
and er uh anyone expected in the final months of this dictators rule he would do any less?
January 30th, 2008 at 9:02 amDoes anybody know where these signing statements reside?
I mean, instead of waiting and hoping that TP or some other blog or media outlet publishes them, where do they go to get published, where we can go and look them up?
Comment by Jackie Morgan — January 30, 2008 @ 12:59 am
Here’s where the signing statements go after being signed. The site is up-to-date and includes the one we’re discussing.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/ signingstatements/ signstateann.htm
January 30th, 2008 at 9:17 amJust another in a long line of Shrub Boy crap.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:20 amWhy is the president allowed to conduct official business “quietly”? Especially through the use of signing statements - his equivalent of naa naa naa.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:20 amIt looks like this fellow will escape scot-free, all his crimes swept under the rug. After a few years of rehab and the Repugs singing his praises he will be probably be considered the best president ever. But to me, he will always be King George the Turd. or King George the tard.
Stop George-the-turd now!
January 30th, 2008 at 12:25 pmLong before Bush ever ran for president, he ran one of the nastiest campaigns for senator in Texas history . Trust me, that’s saying a lot. The only two jobs he had prior to that were, Texas oilman, financed by his family and a bust, never found a drop of oil. His father’s friends then put him in charge of the Texas Rangers baseball team–he nearly bankrupted that. Then, for some unfathomable reason, Texans elected him governor.
Bush crossed the aisles to work with Democrats–the few days that he was actually in Texas. Just as he does since being President, he handed the work to underlings and was off flying around the country.
I remember begging people to please realize that Bush left Texas teetering on bankruptcy, with massive numbers of his “laws” having to be rolled back to prevent that. He held open the border door and the flood of illegal aliens and the impact on local economies has continued to worsen since he left.
Not only was he placed into office by the Supreme Court, people went on to re-elect him. Makes you wonder just how worthless the Constitution was to those Americans who voted for him –twice.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:48 pmTypical bushco move .Here ye oh here ye the bushco oligarchy is in full stride until the end ,no lame duck here.For all you bushco noecons i say to you, you put this authortarian fascist son of a %$#^& in office and look what he`s done to AMERICA.Every thing that was good and righteous about AMERICA he has destoyed without regard to our soldiers,the poor without health care,the middle class whose job went to Mexico and China and so on and so forth.I say to all my fellow progressives out lok up and study about High Crimes and misdemeanors.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:53 pmSo when will Congress find itself some balls and take the Administration to the Supreme Court about “signing statements?” Since when can a President choose what laws to uphold and which to not?? If Congress doesn’t have any standing on this issue to take the Admin to court, then who does??
January 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pmWho wants to bet that on Jan. 21st, 2009, the Supreme Court will determine that signing statements are unconstitutional?
January 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pmAs long as we continue to elect men who are inclined to the lust for power and authority to inhabit the high office of the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency then we will continue to suffer under their misguided leadership and the consequences of their actions.
Domestic traitors, in the guise of our own representatives, and agents of our own government, with insidious and malevolent intent, seek to corrupt and subvert this Nation and undermine the very foundations upon which this Nation was founded.
Those within this Administration have cut asunder the obligations of their office through secret intrigues, instituting legislations contrary to our Constitutional Order, as well as circumventing and openly ignoring the very Law of the Land.
Those within this Administration have derived their political principles and power from foreign and corporate influences, exerting powers unseen in efforts to ruin our Republic, laying it prostrate as they discard our original institutions, instead of adhering to the uniform Constitutional Order of our Nation.
Those within this government no longer view their power as emanating from the consent of the People, nor do they view themselves as dependent upon the People to subscribe to the will of the People. The politicians have sought to persuade the People that their government is the arbitrary engrossment of all power, and the granter of all rights, yet they have long forgotten that this government is the sole property of the People, and the People alone.
When the People find themselves set upon by a government, which no longer abides by the Law of The Land, by the Contract between the government of consent and the consent of the governed, then it is the undoubted Right and Duty to throw off that bond and assert their Natural and Unabridged Right of Liberty. The question arises then; do the People have sufficient power and strength to maintain their ground in defending their Just Rights against their oppressors? In the present circumstances, that ability can be called into doubt due to the overwhelming forces of the government, which would be called to bear against the People and the Rights of the People.
Nevertheless, it is Our Indispensable Duty, if there are no other means of redress, to renounce all submission to the government that seeks to oppress us and to enter into the Compact of Freedom with those of like mind and heart to defend this Nation against those who would seek to destroy the very foundations upon which this government was founded. It is much easier to turn aside from any responsibility that Our Liberty requires of us and allow the sense of the ruin and destruction that those in power would bring upon those who stand for Freedom and the Restoration of this National Republic however, it is nevertheless important that there are some who are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to secure that which has been lost over the decades. Should it not concern each of us to stand fast in Liberty and to strive to gain victory over every aspect of tyranny that now plagues this Nation?
January 30th, 2008 at 2:01 pmLol this is really funny, you guys still think you’re a democracy and act out in righteous indignation when your leader stops pretending he’s anything but a corporate lackey. You are an oligarchy, and always have been, your founding fathers stole your country from the natives like every nation in north, central, and south America. They then proceeded to build your country on slavery, and then didn’t think enough of the average American (read white men) to allow you elect your own leader (college of the electorate anyone). All of you were probably lined up to shout down what few neigh sayers who argued against the 2003 invasion. When the rest of the world said, hey no weapons of mass destruction, no reason to invade, you reacted in anger - how dare we question your right to run rampant over the world like you owned the place (freedom fries anyone). And when it was proven there were no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq you leader just kind of shrugged his shoulder glossed over that GLARING fact and said well we’re here now so we might as well make the best of it, did you riot in the streets , no you stood around and said somebody better do something about it and went back to your starbucks and SUV’s. When the democrats came to power and put up a pathetic show of trying to stop your leader did you rail against them and say you are supposed to reflect the public sentiment, no you shrugged your shoulders and went back to your big macs and American Idols. when your leader systematically disassembled the right you supposedly had enshrined, did you flood the streets in mass protest, no you shrugged your shoulders and said damn well next elections things will be different and went back to your i pods and Britney gossip. What tyranny exists in your country, the same one that has always been there from the very start, so stop acting so shocked now
January 30th, 2008 at 2:37 pmThis friggin arrogant punk thinks he’s a dictator in a corporate imperialist police-state.
Let’s treat him as such — like they did Mussolini.
That would demonstrate real ‘purple thumbs’ for democracy
January 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pmCongress should start including a statement in each bill, stating that any additional text added to subvert the meaning of a passed bill will be considered as having been added in “Contempt of Congress” and the President (or anyone) adding such text can be subject to arrest and/or impeachment. [Fight Fire with Fire.]
January 30th, 2008 at 8:57 pmRegarding #131 from druter and his critique of America:
Granted there’s plenty wrong with the USA these days. But, I’m wondering where exactly ‘druter’ is from? Could it be Great Britain or one of her colonies? If so, then your house is also built with enough glass that you might be careful with stones.
Who elects your Prime Minister - not a direct vote of the people is it? Sort of based on the majority in your House of Common(er)s in a de facto sort of way, but technically isn’t the PM appointed by your Sovereign (i.e. your King or Queen)? And, then there’s your House of Lords (how are they elected?). In the US we may be ruled by the rich in many instances (like most countries) but we have managed to avoid allowing anyone to rule over us, or consider themselves our “Lords”, based only on their DNA. I won’t even get into England and its history of extracting wealth from its many colonies.
Despite all of that, I actually like the English and their culture a great deal. I would even say that Great Britain is one of the greatest countries in the world, in many ways. I only object to such claims of clear superiority over the USA in matters of democracy.
Lastly, please know that many of us in American were quite strongly opposed to the War on Iraq from Day One.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:14 am